All things in moderation

Date: 02/05/1996

THE European Parliament is flexing its budgetary muscles with ever increasing vigour as MEPs seek to exploit their hold on the EU's purse-strings to extend their influence over the policy-makers.

As European Voice reveals this week, Euro MPs are becoming increasingly adept at using their right to withhold approval for the release of EU funds to force both the European Commission and the Council of Ministers to bow to their demands.

A string of initiatives have been amended in response to the use of this tactic, from the Commission's publicity campaigns designed to sell the Euro to a sceptical public, inform citizens of their rights in the single market and explain the key issues at the heart of the Intergovernmental Conference debate to the running of Commission delegation offices around the world.

It has clearly proved an effective device, enabling MEPs to have a much greater say in EU policy areas where their formal influence is limited, as well as enhancing their role in areas where they already have well-established competences.

But those within the Commission who criticise this approach, arguing that it complicates their work and introduces a damaging element of financial uncertainty into key programmes and projects, are not alone.

Some within the Parliament itself question the wisdom of going too far down this road. They are right to be concerned.

Used selectively and wisely, such tactics can produce laudable results - it was the MEPs' threat to withhold the 1.7 million ecu allocated to Commissioners for their 1996 travel expenses which helped produce agreement on a new code of conduct governing Commissioners' behaviour.

But it should not be abused. If it is used too often, causes protracted delays in implementing key programmes without good reason, or is targeted at policy areas in which member states have deliberately chosen to limit the Parliament's influence - such as in the formulation of common foreign and security policies - it could backfire.

It is, of course, vital for the Parliament, as the Union's only directly-elected institution, to exercise control over the way Union taxpayers' money is spent.

But MEPs would be wise to resist the temptation to wield such a powerful weapon simply to demonstrate their capacity to disrupt the smooth running of the EU if their demands go unheeded.

One of the key institutional issues facing the Intergovernmental Conference is that of whether the Parliament should be given a greater role in Union decision-making.

MEPs intent on winning this fight would be wise to hold their fire, except in exceptional circumstances, rather than antagonise those who are already sceptical about the wisdom of giving them increased formal powers.

The debate over the Parliament's future is a vital one for all those anxious to increase the EU's democratic legitimacy.

The waters should not be muddied by the questionable use of tactics which may leave MEPs open to accusations that they are holding other Union institutions to ransom. That would only serve to fuel misgivings among those charged with charting a new course for the EU in the 21st century about the wisdom of extending the Parliament's role.